Just reflect on your thinking in this case. Not how you think about yourself relative to your environment.

Sorry, wolf-man, but this just confused me more. I figure out those dichotomies by thinking about my obvious behavior tendencies. I have read plenty of stuff about "Fi" but most of it lacks context, so it's hard to identify something like that in order to answer a very broad question like "how SFP see Fi in themselves."

Originally Posted by simulatedworld

It's that little voice in your head that tells you what's fundamentally right and wrong, and to stick up for your right to express yourself in your own way.

Each function represents an attitude, a perspective, a certain way of viewing the relationship between yourself and the outside world.

That makes sense to me, but I don't how I would describe how I see it in myself. It's just something that's always been ingrained in me. I question and doubt most things. The list of fundamentally right and wrong is pretty short for me.

That makes sense to me, but I don't how I would describe how I see it in myself. It's just something that's always been ingrained in me. I question and doubt most things. The list of fundamentally right and wrong is pretty short for me.

Well, most people report having a hard time expressing the essence of their own Fi effectively.

Fi is the source of things you "just know" about the basic rules of morality, what is valuable and important to your sense of self and the criteria upon which you internally judge and evaluate most people and things. Fi doesn't need anyone else's opinions to know what is right and it's not going to change for anyone else. Fi is what you can't violate and still be able to look at yourself in the mirror.

It may very well be tough for you to explain to others how something that personal works.

If you could be anything you want, I bet you'd be disappointed--am I right?

That makes sense to me, but I don't how I would describe how I see it in myself. It's just something that's always been ingrained in me. I question and doubt most things. The list of fundamentally right and wrong is pretty short for me.

I think you'd find most Fi-doms would say that. There's a few broad, vague yet sure ideas of what is right & true, but everything else is context dependent or simply an individual's personal preference. It either hits on one of those feelings in some way or it doesn't.

Often a star was waiting for you to notice it. A wave rolled toward you out of the distant past, or as you walked under an open window, a violin yielded itself to your hearing. All this was mission. But could you accomplish it? (Rilke)

Sorry, wolf-man, but this just confused me more. I figure out those dichotomies by thinking about my obvious behavior tendencies. I have read plenty of stuff about "Fi" but most of it lacks context, so it's hard to identify something like that in order to answer a very broad question like "how SFP see Fi in themselves."

Yeah, it is hard for me to see it in myself too. Reflecting on how I make decisions and the kind of things I take into consideration in my thinking helped me. Also how I tend to sort through things and organise them in my mind. Basically, how I am responding in my mind to things that come up.

Se is a prefferance for learning from direct experience, so SFPs tend to form opinions based more upon their own life experiences then theoretical considerations (unlike the NFPs!). Because of this preferance, SFPs will tend to get invovled in lots of diffferent things, which builds up their basis for making decisions. When experience is laking, SFPS often remain neutral on the subject matter. Their Ni is probably chipping in there - peoples opinions are just ideas, at least until the SFP has tride it themselves.

This seems to fit with my ISFP friend. I find it so hard to analyze her behaviour because its so like mine and yet it has these hard to define differences. This really helps

Originally Posted by BlackCat

+1 to your post.

Also as said in the other most recent Fi thread, Se is about the current context. So we would be in tune with how things affect us in the current context... and we wouldn't really jump to conclusions like Ne does in the NFPs. So we'd only really react a certain way unless we had a real reason to.

I personally don't express offense or anything emotional unless there is some kind of concrete proof that someone had that intent. I tend to react to on the surface emotions over the deeper ones. When that happens I tend to just stay cool and wait for more info to see what the intent was.

Also... my values are constantly being molded from my experiences in life. That's how I describe Fi and Se working together. And adding to that, I tend to express my values and inner feelings through action (or inaction). Not really through my thoughts.

Interesting - particularly about INFPs jumping to conclusions.

My ISFP friend is so cautious in forming an opinion, especially a negative one. While not rash or reckless in my decision making, I am comparatively quick to take up a position on an issue. My friend takes her time to feel it out, asking questions about others' beliefs, pondering on it and in a more long term process. I guess ISFPs' beliefs are more fluid and they constantly test their opinions for congruence with their experiences, where as INFPs are more sure of themselves and once they decide on them, they tend to set their opinions in concrete.

Would you say Se allows for greater openess to possibilities where Ne simply searches for an answer?

My ISFP friend is so cautious in forming an opinion, especially a negative one. While not rash or reckless in my decision making, I am comparatively quick to take up a position on an issue. My friend takes her time to feel it out, asking questions about others' beliefs, pondering on it and in a more long term process. I guess ISFPs' beliefs are more fluid and they constantly test their opinions for congruence with their experiences, where as INFPs are more sure of themselves and once they decide on them, they tend to set their opinions in concrete.

Tell me about it. I used to have an INFP girlfriend who did exactly that, and it drove me up the wall! You see, I'm far more interested in ideas than than opinions. In fact, from an Ni point of view an opinion is just an idea. And having such strong opinions ment that, from my way of looking at things, she only had one idea on any subject. Which made discusions with her a bit dull. After awhile it got to the point where when she said "I think..." what I was thinking was "Yeah, whatever". Anyway, enough of my bitterness.

Originally Posted by Southern Kross

Would you say Se allows for greater openess to possibilities where Ne simply searches for an answer?

I wouldn't, actually. Both functions are well developed in ISFPs and INFPs, respectively, and both are interested in new information, even if it is of a different type.

The trouble you are experiencing comes from your underdeveloped tertiary Si. Si is a function that seeks to certify the reliability of information. A principal or fact that is seen as reliable is given great weight in disicion making. In an ISJ, this function is well developed and sophisticated, able to distinguish between conclusions and the information used to form them. Sadly, in an INFP, this sometimes doesn't happen. Fi and Ne form an opinion, then tertiary Si takes this conclusion and files it away as a relaible fact. Once listed in this manner, the INFP can be reluctant to dust it off and throw it back into the Fi - Ne loop for reassesment. INTPs sometimes do a similar thing.

ISFPs have tertiary Ni instead. This can also cause them problems, but of a different nature. ISFPs will sometimes fail to form opinions when Se gathered information is lacking. This is the tertiary Ni treating peoples opinions as ideas, but then not taking the process any further, such as by analysing these view points for usable principals.

....ISFPs have tertiary Ni instead. This can also cause them problems, but of a different nature. ISFPs will sometimes fail to form opinions when Se gathered information is lacking. This is the tertiary Ni treating peoples opinions as ideas, but then not taking the process any further, such as by analysing these view points for usable principals.

This would suggest that SFP may take people at face value and may be gulliable.

Grrr...Even the ISFP thread is a chance for someone to get a dig in on INFP. It irritates me on two levels. One, people can't hate on INFP enough and two why not let ISFP be discussed without the huge shadow of INFP looming over it? Whenever dom Fi is talked about on this board, it is always about INFP, INFP Fi has been discussed/whipped to death on here.

This would suggest that SFP may take people at face value and may be gulliable.

And not the case. I think Simulatedworld's statement here is great:

Well, most people report having a hard time expressing the essence of their own Fi effectively.

Fi is the source of things you "just know" about the basic rules of morality, what is valuable and important to your sense of self and the criteria upon which you internally judge and evaluate most people and things. Fi doesn't need anyone else's opinions to know what is right and it's not going to change for anyone else. Fi is what you can't violate and still be able to look at yourself in the mirror.

It may very well be tough for you to explain to others how something that personal works.

I have a hard time following the definitions of Si around here- because most of them come from people who don't use it in most situations, and most of them in no way describe my approach to life.

Nonetheless, I appreciate the theories. It appears you have to dig until you find something that works for you.

How do I find the answer to that? How do I know what is "Fi" in myself?

Fi is whatever it is inside you that compells you to behave in an "FP" way. FP and Fi are roughly the same thing, feeling that is outwardly disorganised/flexible and inwardly structured/inflexible. So for example Fi is very sure of how the self (internal structure) "should" be whereas Fe is more sure of how others/society (external structure) "should" be. Dunno if that makes any sense.